World Cup 2026

[BFTD]

55 minutes ago, HibeeJibee said:

Well worst 2 teams in rankings met on 2002 WC Final day:

The Other Final - Wikipedia

Bhutan 4-0 Montserrat     15,000

I think the documentary about that is what first put the idea in my head. It sounds patronising, but I think a wee tournament of nations we'd never get to see otherwise could be good fun, and would develop a cult following. The attention might bring in money to help improve their facilities and organisation too. Again, trying not to be patronising.

I saw an article about Monserrat not long ago, and how they've come on in leaps and bounds since the game against Bhutan, when they were the bottom two teams in the world. They won't be going to the World Cup in our lifetimes, but they've had some impressive results and are nowhere near the worst anymore.

[Donathan]

Infantino confirms they’re moving back to 4 team groups 

[Michael W]

The last round of fixtures was superb during this tournament, but that was due to the unknown element in many cases. You can't replicate that with 48 teams as you'll have a lot more teams knowing what will/won't be enough for them. The teams playing their last round of group fixtures last will have a particular good understanding of what will get them through as a 3rd place team. 

It is probably better than the groups of 3, however, which were a fairly transparent gesture to stop clubs kicking off about players being made to play more matches. 

Edited December 16, 2022 by Michael W

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, Donathan said:

Infantino confirms they’re moving back to 4 team groups 

FIFA have cooked their goose in going to 48 teams, no side should be eliminated because of results in other groups over which they had no control. 

[BFTD]

4 minutes ago, IncomingExile said:

FIFA have cooked their goose in going to 48 teams, no side should be eliminated because of results in other groups over which they had no control. 

Not the first time they've adopted that model. Uruguay used to be the masters of qualifying by the slimmest margins possible. Not that I'm bitter.

Frankly, if you can't manage a single win in three games - which will most likely end up the threshold - you've no business progressing anyway.

[craigkillie]

45 minutes ago, IncomingExile said:

FIFA have cooked their goose in going to 48 teams, no side should be eliminated because of results in other groups over which they had no control. 

They'll have been eliminated by being too shite to finish 2nd in their own group, just like in every other World Cup in recent memory.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, craigkillie said:

They'll have been eliminated by being too shite to finish 2nd in their own group, just like in every other World Cup in recent memory.

I take your point, but two thirds of the too shite 3rd placers won't be eliminated..... assuming they go with that model. 

[Donathan]

They might be tempted to give the best 8 group winners a bye to the last 16 and have the other 4 winners and all 8 second place teams play in round 2.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Donathan said:

They might be tempted to give the best 8 group winners a bye to the last 16 and have the other 4 winners and all 8 second place teams play in round 2.

Ultimately, this is FIFA we're talking about, I'm sure they will come up with the most ridiculous solution! Also applicable to UEFA.

[BFTD]

I thought someone had already done this, but I don't see it anywhere. Just to give an idea of what USA/MEX/CAN 2026 might look like, here's a list of the nations who'd current qualify (according to FIFA's rankings)...

Obviously, things can change a fair bit over the next few years, and some nations (*cough* Wales!) won't be as high on the rankings, not that it's a guarantee of qualification anyway.

...then there's the weird play-off tournament that FIFA are planning, featuring the next best sides from everywhere except UEFA, with CONCACAF getting two teams. On current rankings, Ecuador and Burkina Faso would each play a one-legged play-off against the winners of two one-legged games between two of Oman, El Salvador, Honduras, and the Solomon Islands. I'm guessing that El Salvador and Honduras would be kept apart, both coming from CONCACAF, so you could get Ecuador v Oman or El Salvador, and Burkina Faso v Honduras or the Solomon Islands, with the two winners qualifying.

Call me an elitist snob, but it's hard to see this being anything other than a coronation for CONMEBOL's seventh-best side, whoever it turns out to be, and someone else lucky enough not to get drawn against them. Honduras have some recent World Cup success, but we haven't seen El Salvador since 1982, and they have one of the worst records at the tournament of all time. Burkina Faso have never qualified, but pull out some pretty decent performances at the African Nations Cup, while Oman and the Solomon Islands...yeah, qualification would a major surprise for anybody that far down the rankings.

It's definitely good news for African and Central American sides who've never qualified before and might get a shot now, plus there's always the chance that New Zealand will drop the ball against one of the smaller island nations. Likely to be the same old faces from the other confederations though, unless Venezuela can finally pull their fingers out.

[vikingTON]

9 hours ago, IncomingExile said:

FIFA have cooked their goose in going to 48 teams, no side should be eliminated because of results in other groups over which they had no control. 

It hasn't derailed the Euros or the Betfred Cup so I think they're on safe ground with that claim at least. 

Like the bye for the top 8 better than any other setup - at least until England inevitably draw Wigtown and Bladnoch, Vale of Leithen and the Knights of St. John in their group. 

[BFTD]

Assuming FIFA continue with the same seeding system (four seeding pots, hosts are all top seeds, with the remaining pots filled from the top of the World Rankings on down), the seedings could play out something like this:

...with a potential draw, assuming they want to keep everyone from the same confederation except UEFA apart, and likely limiting UEFA to a maximum of two per group, being:

The top two in each group would presumably qualify along with the 8 third-place teams with the best record.
Make of that what you will.

[Donathan]

One that I’ve not seen suggested, but what about a double group stage?

 

Round 1: 48 teams, 12 groups of 4. Top 2 progress.

 

Round 2: 8 groups of 3. Group winners only progress.

 

 

Then QFs, SFs and F.

 

 

[Guest]

57 minutes ago, virginton said:

Like the bye for the top 8 better than any other setup - at least until England inevitably draw Wigtown and Bladnoch, Vale of Leithen and the Knights of St. John in their group. 

I would prefer that option, no side gets sent packing for results outside their own group. 

Or just keep it 32, even if it means re-jigging the confederations.  
 

Edited December 16, 2022 by IncomingExile

[Highland Capital]

I see there's been some talk of a happy medium of expanding to 40 teams.  I'd imagine that would keep Europe as is, three extra in Africa, one extra in Asia, North America and South America and then New Zealand and maybe one intercontinental one somewhere.

Edited December 16, 2022 by Highland Capital

[Donathan]

9 minutes ago, Highland Capital said:

I see there's been some talk of a happy medium of expanding to 40 teams.  I'd imagine that would keep Europe as is, three extra in Africa, one extra in Asia, North America and South America and then New Zealand and maybe one intercontinental one somewhere.

40 would be good with the 1999 rugby World Cup format, IMO.

 

 

10 groups of 4. Winners through to the last 16. Runners up and best 2 third places go into a repechage round for the last 6 spots. 
 

 

Would mean 82 games total, in line with the 80 under the 16 x 3 format (the 12 x 4 format would mean 104) 

[grazza]

A 2nd group phase of 3 teams looks interesting. Issue though could be that group winner plays in first 2 matches then are already through and we have a dead rubber. Or a scenario where team A beat team B 5-0, Team B beat team C 1-0 then team C have to win by 5 goals on final game to get through.  The team that plays in game 1 and 3 and gets rest may get slight advantage.

A bye for top 8 group winners would work well and increase the intensity in group games. 7 points you've got good chance but if you lose even 1 game  then very likely be punished for it. 

 

 

[Ray Patterson]

On 16/12/2022 at 22:42, Highland Capital said:

I see there's been some talk of a happy medium of expanding to 40 teams.  I'd imagine that would keep Europe as is, three extra in Africa, one extra in Asia, North America and South America and then New Zealand and maybe one intercontinental one somewhere.

Too late for that now as continental confederations have already designed their qualifying tournaments. It'll be 48 teams.

What I hope is that we have the 12 groups of 4 teams with the top two progressing and the best 8 group winners getting a bye to the Round of 16, which should mean that every game has something riding on it.

[VincentGuerin]

12 hours ago, grazza said:

1) A 2nd group phase of 3 teams looks interesting. Issue though could be that group winner plays in first 2 matches then are already through and we have a dead rubber. 2) Or a scenario where team A beat team B 5-0, Team B beat team C 1-0 then team C have to win by 5 goals on final game to get through.  The team that plays in game 1 and 3 and gets rest may get slight advantage.

A bye for top 8 group winners would work well and increase the intensity in group games. 7 points you've got good chance but if you lose even 1 game  then very likely be punished for it. 

 

 

1) They solved this problem in 1982 by just holding back confirming the fixtures and if either side won the opening game, they got a break and didn't play in the second game. Meant the last game could not be a dead rubber.

2) In that case, tough shit. Team B should have won by more than 1-0. That's just fitba.

I'd lean towards the system of having the best group winners skip a stage, but FIFA will follow whatever path leads to the most $$$$ so f**k knows.

[craigkillie]

Every tournament needs a good knockout stage, having a double group stage, particularly one involving groups of three, would be a much worse solution than simply letting some third placed sides through or giving some group winners a bye.